Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of the study was to examine the cooperative purchasing activities between the city and county of Los Angeles in the last five years to determine the level of cooperation in the purchase of similar goods and services. Another purpose of this study was to determine the barriers to cooperation and assess how the procurement managers and officers utilize the cooperative purchasing agreement between the two local governments to achieve the goal of significant economy. Theoretical framework. The study was conducted from the assumption that cooperative purchasing was conceived to be cost efficient and operationally effective and is supported by the theory of economies of scale. It is facilitated by written mandates of policy makers and support of upper management. Additionally, it was conceived that the barriers to cooperation are issues of change implementation and defensive routines. Methodology. The research was descriptive case study research using primary data from face-to-face interview, and secondary and archival documents to determine why cooperative purchasing activities are limited between the two local governments. The researcher used face-to-face interview to collect data from 31 procurement managers and officers and reviewed documents from the local governments. The data were analyzed and used to answer the research questions. Major findings. The findings indicated that issues of conflicting socioeconomic policies, change implementation, and defensive routines are the barriers to cooperative purchasing between the city and county. Findings also indicated that significant cost savings and operational effectiveness have been achieved through the use of the joint contracts established through written mandates of the policymakers to facilitate volume discounts and price breaks. Conclusions and recommendations. The cooperative purchasing agreement was adopted, but not properly implemented and evaluated. For effective cooperative purchasing between the city and county, the policy makers must issue written mandates to restructure the implementation and evaluation of the policy and designate upper management as leaders of the project. The project leaders must develop strategies to monitor and review real time implementation process to eliminate defensive routines and ensure accountability.